Hello Patrick!
13 Feb 97 00:00, Patrick Spence wrote to Robert Jung:
 PS> But are there any plans at all to consider an os/2 version?  I love
 PS> Arj, simply due to its vast capabilities via commandline parameters...
 PS> but I am increasingly doing more and more things in os/2 native
 PS> instead of in dos.. which is making it more and more of a nuisance to
 PS> have to spawn a dos session for handling of archives...  I would like
 PS> to check out Jar and see what it has to offer, but see no point in it
 PS> if it doesn't support the platform that I need it for...
Patrick, do you think we should also have a versions of ARJ/JAR for the 
Amiga, Commodore 64 & 128, Atari, Apple II, TRS-80, etc., etc.???
When the point comes that you cannot find support for your operating system, 
be it in this case ARJ and JAR, or multimedia support (re: Creative Lab's 
announcement to abandon OS/2), should *you* not seriously evaluate your 
current choice of operating system instead of putting the onus on the 
developers of software?
Patrick, I wish OS/2 followers would wake up and smell the coffee: even IBM 
has made it _very_ clear that it is *NOT* interested in the consumer market.  
And ATM machines don't require multimedia, ARJ and JAR :-)
So where would the market be for an OS/2 version of ARJ and/or JAR?  The 
small numbers of SysOps which have had traditionally tight budgets and prefer 
freeware?  OS/2 in the consumer market is dead, and the corporate market is 
embracing NT.  Where does that leave OS/2???  1996 was "The Year of the 
Browser".  Was there even one single browser for OS/2 that hit the retail 
shelf in 1996?  Nope.  What does that tell you?  ATM machines don't need 
browsers.
Have you written to IBM lately and asked them why "Merlin" sales are as dead 
as a doornail?  And why even the OS/2 magazine folded?  And you want small 
companies (like ARJ Software) to invest their precious resources into a dying 
venture???  Did you ever scratch your head and ask why larger companies, such 
as PKWare, have not bothered to support OS/2 since PKZ102-2.EXE, 258,034 
bytes, dated 10/01/89 01:02 ???  That's about 52 dog (= computer) years!!!
It's the old chicken-egg question, and traditionally the approach has been to 
analyze available software to accomplish tasks first, *then* decide on the 
operating system and hardware!  If you want to take a backward approach, 
well, I guess you're stuck with what you have: OS/2, InfoZip's freeware and 
RAR. Patrick, first you swim against the stream and then you want others to 
change course and swim with you.  Doesn't work too well in real life.
You know, I'm getting increasingly tired of OS/2 users insisting on so-called 
"native" applications for their orphaned operating system.  Did you ever 
wonder why IBM included the DOS compatibility mode?
Patrick, instead of asking others to re-evaluate their priorities, I think 
you should re-evaluate yours.  Can you say: Windows 95 and / or NT ?
Cheers, Hans
... Taglines  \'tag-l„inz \  The bumperstickers of BBS'ing.
--- GoldED/386 2.50+ / Squish / Maximus / Binkley / WINDOWS 95 / V34+
---------------